Lead

A new legislative proposal in Pakistan's Punjab province has sparked intense criticism from opposition figures, civil society, and legal experts. The Punjab Control of Habitual Offenders and Anti-Social Behaviour Bill, 2026, cleared the Punjab Assembly Standing Committee on Law and awaits a vote by the full assembly to become law, according to Dawn. The bill, moved by Khalid Mahmood Ranjha of Mandi Bahauddin, a retired district and sessions judge from the PML-N, proposes a regime that critics say would allow the executive to freeze bank accounts, seize property, remove online presence, confiscate phones, and impose electronic surveillance without securing a criminal conviction.

Coverage Comparison

All reporting on this story that is available is from Dawn, which has covered the bill across multiple articles, consistently framing it as a critical turn in Punjab's legal landscape. The coverage emphasizes the bill's expansive powers, its colonial-era precursors, and the reactions from opposition and independent voices. Dawn's reporting notes that the bill would replace the Restriction of Habitual Offenders (Punjab) Act of 1918 and the Punjab Control of Goondas Ordinance of 1959—both laws with colonial or military origins. The articles underscore that the bill's definitions of 'anti-social behaviour' are controversial, including provisions that could treat the spread of misinformation, or the use of abusive language, as offending acts.

Key Claims

  • The bill proposes executive sanctions without judicial due process. According to Dawn, the Punjab Control of Habitual Offenders and Anti-Social Behaviour Bill, 2026 would allow the executive to freeze bank accounts, seize property, remove online presence, confiscate phones, and impose electronic surveillance, all based on an intelligence committee's assessment of a person's conduct. This does not require proving guilt in court before these sanctions take effect.
  • The bill replaces existing laws. The proposed law would replace the Restriction of Habitual Offenders (Punjab) Act of 1918 and the Punjab Control of Goondas Ordinance of 1959. Dawn notes that both are considered colonial-era laws or carried forward from a military governor's drive in 1959.
  • Definitions of anti-social behaviour are broad. Section 6 of the bill includes provisions that define behaviour such as causing 'fear or alarm to the public by threats', spreading 'misinformation' or 'disinformation', and posting 'provocative content' on social media as anti-social. Dawn reports that many of these activities are already offences under the Pakistan Penal Code or special laws such as PECA and the Anti-Terrorism Act, raising the question of whether the bill creates a parallel system that circumvents judicial due process.
  • Habitual offender designation is based on a pending case. Section 9 of the proposed law states that a person against whom a criminal case has been registered and a report under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been submitted will be declared a habitual offender.
  • Broad powers for intelligence committees. The bill grants District Intelligence Committees the power to declare any additional set of activities as anti-social, an open-ended authority that critics say could be abused.
  • The bill's path to enactment. The bill has cleared the Punjab Assembly Standing Committee on Law and requires only a vote by the Punjab Assembly to go into effect.

Perspectives

The Government / Supporters' Perspective

The available reporting does not provide a direct statement from the bill's supporters. However, the bill was moved by Khalid Mahmood Ranjha, a PML-N lawmaker and retired district and sessions judge. The government has described the bill in its preamble as aiming to "control of habitual offenders and anti-social behaviour that affect the writ of state, cause public nuisance and expose society to criminal activities." The lack of direct defence beyond that description leaves the rationale primarily as a law-and-order measure.

Critics' Perspective

Critics, as reported by Dawn, include Yousuf Nazar, former head of Citigroup's emerging markets investments, who called the bill "one of the most dangerous pieces of legislation proposed in Pakistan in recent years." Nazar, along with Usama Khilji, Muhammad Zubair, and Sheikh Waqas Akram, have criticized the bill as draconian and dangerous. Opponents argue that the bill gives executive committees dominated by police and intelligence officials the power to label citizens as 'habitual offenders' or 'anti-social' without a criminal conviction, thus undermining due process. They highlight that bank accounts, property, devices, travel documents, and social media can be targeted without the state proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Critics also point out that the bill's definitions of anti-social behaviour are so vague that they could curb dissent and punish journalists and activists, effectively creating a 'hard state' mechanism.

Conclusion

The Punjab Control of Habitual Offenders and Anti-Social Behaviour Bill, 2026 remains one legislative vote away from becoming law. Its critics warn that it grants the executive sweeping powers that bypass the judiciary and civil liberties, while its proposed definitions could stifle dissenting voices. The Punjab Assembly is set to consider the bill, and the outcome will determine whether the province adopts a framework that many legal observers see as a troubling extension of executive authority.